Category: General

The editorial board of the New York Times put out a piece last Saturday regarding Republican attempts to install a conservative in Justice Scalia’s vacant seat, which they call the “stolen supreme court seat.”

You can recognize right away that it is an attack piece by its inflammatory tone, using words like “stolen”, “perpetrators”, and “accomplices”. Their main complaint is that the Republicans played by the rules and won; however, I doubt if the tables had been turned that the Democrats would have done it any different. In fact, you can read about some of the Democrat-led actions to stop Republican Supreme Court nominations here. Even President Obama, while a U.S. Senator, appeared to disagree with rubber-stamping Republican appointees [The Congressional Record].

In any event, at least the Republicans did in fact play by the rules. When the same situation arose for 84 Obama judicial appointments (which shifted the federal courts significantly to the left…), the Democrats simply changed the rules to get their way rather than attempt some sort of compromise with the Republicans. What did the Democrats think would happen after they used this “nuclear option” to stack the courts? That the Republicans wouldn’t try to do the same to compensate?

When you treat people as opponents rather than colleagues, don’t be surprised when they treat you the same way. But so long as people play by the rules you don’t have any grounds to complain when someone else plays better. Get over it and move on.

Back in 2014 the Democrats used the “nuclear option” (changing senate filibuster rules) to confirm 84 Obama-nominated federal court appointments. In my humble opinion, this was an absurdly stupid move that eliminated any semblance of cooperation or consensus from the appointment process. It did help Obama and the democrats swing the federal court system to the far left, but now it’s come back to haunt them. From a Fox News article regarding Trump cabinet nominations:

Democrats have limited options to block nominees outright because they changed filibuster rules when they controlled the Senate in 2013, and Cabinet nominees can win approval on a simple majority vote. Republicans will hold a 52-48 advantage next year. However, Democrats could drag out the process in committee or force longer Senate debates than usual.

Frankly, I wouldn’t put it past the Republicans to change the rules further so as to allow for Supreme Court confirmations with only a majority vote. After all, since the Democrats used a rule change to confirm their federal court nominations, why wouldn’t they be expected to do the same when they have the opportunity to appoint their own Supreme Court pick(s)? And given that possibility, why would the Republicans wait for the Democrats to change the rules (to the detriment of the Republicans)?

Congratulations, Mr. Reid – your past has come back to haunt you.

OK, so we’ve established that both the pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment groups see any laws that restrict their rights in even the smallest degree as an attempt to incrementally eliminate their rights completely. Got it. But what are the motivations of those who are attempting to limit those rights? What’s in it for them?

Let’s look at gun control first. The current rage is to ban so-called “assault weapons”, such as the Colt AR-15 or its derivatives (one of the most popular rifle configurations in the U.S.). Even if we assume that the anti-gun people are working to make the world safer, their efforts simply don’t make sense. Rifles of any kind, including all “assault rifles”, account for only a small portion of armed crimes or homicides. FBI statistics for the period 1993 through 2001 show that shotguns are used in homicides more than all other rifles – including “assault weapons” – combined. Knives or similar sharp objects are used in homicides four times more often than rifles, and even bare hands and feet are used almost twice as often. FBI data from 2006 – 2010 confirms these results. Interestingly, almost 10 times more people die in non-boating related drownings each year than are killed by assault weapons. So I ask: Why do the anti-gun people want to eliminate “assault weapons” when it will have less effect than outlawing backyard pools?

Next we look at laws that restrict abortions. Even if we assume that the only motivation of the anti-abortionists is moral in nature, what difference should it make to them if someone else has an abortion? Will the anti-abortionists go to hell if someone else has an abortion? What business of it is theirs, and what possible impact can it have on them? I have no problem if the anti-abortion camp attempts to prevent abortions by convincing people that it’s not the right thing to do, or by offering to raise the resulting children as adopted without charge or consequence to the biological parents. However, the use of laws to restrict the rights of others when the restricted action has no direct negative impacts on anyone else is not something I understand. What do they have to gain?

I’m going to propose a reason for both gun and abortion laws that may seem a bit strange, but let’s give it a shot anyway. I am proposing that the only purpose for such laws is to punish. For the left, useless gun laws whose only effect is to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens are use to punish the right, while the right uses abortion laws that have no positive impact on anyone to punish the left. Most gun or abortion laws have no significant positive effect on the population as a whole, but both serve to unnecessarily restrict the highly-prized rights of law-abiding citizens. What other purpose could such laws have but to punish opponents?

I think that the pro-choice and pro-gun lobbies should recognize the true purpose of their opposition and unite to put an end to useless laws whose only purpose is to punish law-abiding citizens.

Comments/questions welcomed.

I had a conversation with a female friend the other day regarding abortion. Specifically, we were discussing the dilemma of Ohio Governor John Kasich. He was tasked with either signing or vetoing two abortion laws passed by the state legislature, both of which would reduce a woman’s access to abortion. One was much more severe than the other, but both resulted in a restriction of the time allowed for a woman to abort a fetus (Kasich signed the least restrictive one and vetoed the other). In any event, I asked my friend whether or not it was reasonable to establish a time limit for receiving an abortion. After all, should a baby be abort-able right up until birth? Bear in mind that at this point we were not discussing any special circumstances such as pregnancy due to rape or incest, detection of a serious birth defect, or concerns for the life of the mother.  What she said was yes, a time limit was reasonable, but she would never support or vote for such a limit. When I asked why, she advised me that she saw it as an incremental restriction of her rights that would eventually lead to a complete loss of said right.

What’s interesting about her response is that it mirrors how many feel about guns. Is it reasonable to require that gun sales or transfers involve a background check for the recipient? Yes; however, many (including myself) see it as an incremental step towards a complete ban. As a result, I find it very difficult to support such a requirement. Which brings me to another “friendly” conversation…

I overheard some family members stating that “sensible” gun control measures, such as those implemented in California, do not endanger the private ownership of firearms. Their argument was that the 2nd amendment protects this right and that it would be virtually impossible to muster the necessary state ratification to change or repeal the 2nd amendment. They offered this as proof that “…no one wants to take your guns…” (paraphrased). I politely stated someone should explain that to California gun owners, who just lost the right to own AR-15 sporting rifles. Their response: “Well, no one needs one of those, anyway.”

See where I’m going here? They actually do want to take your guns – or at least the ones they don’t like. Never mind that – according to FBI statistics for the years 2006 through 2010 – rifles of any kind including single-shot, repeater, semi-automatic and so-called “assault rifles” kill less than 1/4 as many people as knives or other cutting instruments. Hell, almost 10 times as many people die in non-boating related drowning accidents each year as are killed by all rifles combined. The fact that some want to ban these firearms in spite of their low crime rate involvement, and the success in California with passing incremental gun control laws that have actually resulted in people losing their right to own certain firearms, is proof to gun owners everywhere that the goal is to eventually strip then of their 2nd amendment rights. As with the argument against abortion limitations, gun owners see such laws as an incremental means to a complete ban. This is why many agree that mandatory background checks are good, but fail to support such laws at the ballot box.

It seems strange that guns and abortion would have a common thread, but there it is. Both sides are afraid that any new restrictions represent an incremental attack on their rights. And, unfortunately, I believe that they are right.

Expect more tomorrow on this subject.

Ilya Somin  makes a good argument for Congress to reclaim it’s power to initiate war [The Volokh Conspiracy], with the help of Senators Tim Kaine and Rand Paul .

This one’s worth writing your senators about. Think about it…

Recently, Ivanka Trump was verbally accosted while she was traveling on a commercial airline flight with her husband and children [FOX News] . It should also be noted that the story indicates the Trumps were sought out by the aggressor; see the reference to initial tweets by the aggressor’s partner. The aggressor was removed from the plane, but claimed that they had been kicked off for ” …expressing my opinion…”, apparently a reference to their free speech rights guaranteed under the 1st amendment.

However, free speech is not unlimited. For instance, your free speech does not require that I provide you with a pulpit from which to speak. As a result, your freedom of speech can be curtailed in any non-public environment by those who control the space. For instance, if you come to my house I expect you to act cordial; if you do not you will be asked to leave. Your right to “free speech does not “trump” (pun intended)  my right to to be free of your inane ramblings in my own home. The same applies to the airline; you are a guest with no control over the space. Act out and you will be disciplined accordingly. If you want free speech on an airplane, then lease one all to yourself.

Franky, I think Ivanka deserves some respect for flying coach, and for doing her best to shield her children from this inconsiderate person.